The DUI thing

[bigshotprof]

I know . . . I know . . . but still . . . .

[samureye]

What's this about now?

[ariastar]

One DUI and you should never be allowed to drive again.

On the last DN, Sammy, they mentioned pretty much everyone they knowing driving drunk.

[forthekids85]

One DUI and you should never be allowed to drive again.



Seems a bit extreme, don't you think?

Repeated DUI's, yeah, I'll give you that. That's irresponsible people that don't care enough about others to get help. But one DUI and never being allowed to drive again? How about giving the people help, instead of just taking away privileges?

Taking away the privilege of driving would be as effective as suspending licenses for speeders. They're still gonna do it anyway. Give people genuine help with dealing with their problems.

[radzack]

Sorry, but driving while intoxicated is one of the most irresponsible things you can do. It's not worth the risk.

[tokenuser]

Seems a bit extreme, don't you think? Nope. You want to make it as inconvenent as possible for someone. Would you want a drunk person handling a gun?

[forthekids85]

Didn't mean to give off the impression that I thought driving while intoxicated was in anyway an acceptable thing... just thought a one strike and your out rule was a little harsh. I'm not talking about someone who causes an injury or death. I'm simply saying that someone who gets pulled over after having an extra drink should have the chance to make right, not be banned from driving for life.

And who said anything about drunks having guns? I don't see the connection..

[phatlip12]

Didn't mean to give off the impression that I thought driving while intoxicated was in anyway an acceptable thing... just thought a one strike and your out rule was a little harsh. I'm not talking about someone who causes an injury or death. I'm simply saying that someone who gets pulled over after having an extra drink should have the chance to make right, not be banned from driving for life.

And who said anything about drunks having guns? I don't see the connection..

I'm with you on this one dude. I don't support driving while intoxicated nor would I do it. I just think what Aria suggested is too harsh. I'll support stricter penalties but nothing THAT harsh (for a first offense). Driving is pretty much a necessity and everyone makes mistakes. This just doesn't seem to be a sensible/possible solution IMO.

[scienceking]

I think guilt of DUI should result in mandatory loss of license with extremely tough burdens of proof based on the need for any type of restricted permit. Mind you, that doesn't mean forever, its just a real pain to be able to get one again and you have to start from basic traffic school once you are eligible.

The big problem right now is that especially those able to afford snazzy legal defense can pretty much get out of the worst parts of losing their driving privileges with things like working hours permits and such. Judges seem to have an unavoidable bias caused by their ability to relate to the needs and problems of working professionals who would need to drive. No one would get a working hours permit to possess a gun again if he was caught mishandling one while intoxicated, and in my opinion guns are just as dangerous as autos in the wrong hands.

[jezzman]

I'm simply saying that someone who gets pulled over after having an extra drink should have the chance to make right, not be banned from driving for life.


In Australia anything over 0.05% is DUI (same in US?).

Maybe a partial solution would be to reduce the limit to 0.00%, that way there is no chance of someone having 'an extra drink'?

[goldsteinmedia]

DUI is never a good thing even for a few blocks.

[forthekids85]

In Australia anything over 0.05% is DUI (same in US?).

Maybe a partial solution would be to reduce the limit to 0.00%, that way there is no chance of someone having 'an extra drink'?

DUI is classified as .08% here.. I think a few states differ, but that seems to be the average mark.

I hate to play the devil's advocate, but instituting a .00% limit would effectively put most bars out of business. That sort of thing would only work in a city, where DUI shouldn't be as much of a problem anyway.

[ryudo]

One DUI and you should never be allowed to drive again.


I agree.

[forthekids85]

I agree.

..shocking.

[ryudo]

..shocking.

Seeing how most charged with DUI's repeat why not?
It's putting peoples lives at risk.


And what Token was saying was a metaphor in that when a drunk is behind the wheel they are now using a weapon just waiting for disaster.
I will agree with you on nothing should be below .08% ....05 or .00 is absurdly low.

[acidburn]

DUI is classified as .08% here.. I think a few states differ, but that seems to be the average mark.

I hate to play the devil's advocate, but instituting a .00% limit would effectively put most bars out of business. That sort of thing would only work in a city, where DUI shouldn't be as much of a problem anyway.

MA is trying to get the limit lowered to .05%. At that level you couldn't go out and have one drink with dinner because you could potentially be over the limit.

I'm all for stiff penalties for DUI, especially where someone is injured as a result of an accident. But lowering the limit isn't going to solve DUI. Revoking someone's license isn't an absolute solution. Just the other day I read an article about where a guy riding a bike was hit and killed by a drunk driver with no prior DUI's. The twist to this story is that the guy who was killed on the bike was a repeat DUI offender whose license was currently suspended, previously for DUI and currently for other legal issues.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/04/25/police_say_drunk_driver_killed_cyclist_in_crash/

People need to be able to drive. You can't revoke the average person's license forever for a single DUI. Permanent suspension needs to be reserved for repeat offenders.

[forthekids85]

Seeing how most charged with DUI's repeat why not?
It's putting peoples lives at risk.


And what Token was saying was a metaphor in that when a drunk is behind the wheel they are now using a weapon just waiting for disaster.
I will agree with you on nothing should be below .08% ....05 or .00 is absurdly low.

I agree that a lot of people are going to be repeat offenders, but I think this also shows that taking away someone's license for life isn't effective at all in deterring them. People drive without a license every single day, just as the above poster mentioned. If the idea of being arrested for DUI wasn't enough to deter someone, the idea of losing a license won't cut it either. Help people out. I have a good friend who's battling substance abuse now.. legal punishment wasn't going to stop him, because he didn't have the ability to just stop using. Now, after going to meetings and talking to professionals, he's turned his entire life around.

I know very few people that intend to drink and drive, willingly. Most just don't know how to get help.

[ryudo]

Yeah.
Maybe for repeat offenders they should set up some sort of strike program.
3 strikes and your out possibly?(all pulled over)
Unless you cause an accident then it's auto strikeout.

Not sure,just a quick stab at something.

[jezzman]

instituting a .00% limit would effectively put most bars out of business.

I take your point entirely, and I admit my suggesting is extreme.

I suppose what I'm really getting at is that I suspect (and this is pure speculation) that the majority of DUI cases are first time offenders. Even if they are not they consist of a major 'chunk' of DUI drivers. If you lower the limit further, or introduce an education policy, isn't it possible to cut out this segment of offenders? Shouldn't we be at a point in our social evolution where we can be responsible enough to not have a single drink if we are driving?

As for repeat offenders, loss of license, AA and community service (in particular rehab for victims of drunk drivers).

That's my two cents! :)

[spark-rain-fire]

I'm going to have to agree with everyone that says One DUI and you can't drive again.

Here, in PA, a DUI is a slap on the wrist. I have 4 speeding tickets, and I am in worse standing with the DMV than my ex girlfriend who has a DUI

[kontact]

first of all, it was a joke.

second, how hard is it to NOT drink and drive?

Plan ahead. +10 life points.

[kronos6948]

Not to argue semantics, but I have to argue semantics.

DUI is Driving Under the Influence. .08 BAL could be the equivalent of one beer an hour before driving.

DWI is Driving While Intoxicated which equals drunk driving.

The hardest part about this whole situation is tolerance. Some people can have a beer or two without any noticeable difference. But, the law is the law. They make the BAL that low because some people DON'T have the tolerance.

Dropping the BAL to .00 is ridiculous. You could spend your afternoon at a nice restaurant, have a glass of wine with your meal, stay for dessert and coffee, and still have a BAL of .05 or less.

That would also mean no more alcohol in food. I couldn't have my homemade pasta sauce, because of the wine involved (And no, all the alcohol never cooks out). Instead of cops waiting near bars, they'd start waiting behind restaurants to peg "criminals" for having a BAL higher than .00.

[phatlip12]

Drinking responsibly includes having a designated driver. If you can't drink responsibly you shouldn't drink at all.

Here is my solution:

1) Stricter penalties for first and multiple offenders (don't revoke permanently on a first offense though).

2) Multiple offender? You obviously can't drink responsibly and continue to put yourself and others in risk as a result. People like this shouldn't be allowed to drink. Everyone should be required to show ID whenever buying a drink no matter what age you are. Multiple DUI offenders shouldn't be allowed to drink. They're ID will indicate this so as long as the person selling the alcohol follows the law they won't be served.

[dragonbladev]

Seems a bit extreme, don't you think?

Repeated DUI's, yeah, I'll give you that. That's irresponsible people that don't care enough about others to get help. But one DUI and never being allowed to drive again? How about giving the people help, instead of just taking away privileges?

Taking away the privilege of driving would be as effective as suspending licenses for speeders. They're still gonna do it anyway. Give people genuine help with dealing with their problems.

ROFL and i was just about to give em a piece of my mind but i see that u already did it. ya for a first offense its kinda bullshit to take away the license for life. i drove drunk once and i didnt even realize it till i almost got in a accident, now as a responsible person a few years later i have never droven under the influence once, but if i got in that accident and they took away my license for life.. well id be fucked. couldnt maintain a job cause i work in the city and i live a little towards the country area, i think fucking over peoples lifes with a dui would be like throwing someone in jail for smokeing, NOW if that DUI killed someone, well they should take full responsiblity for murder, i even think the death penalty would be in order for some who just devasted so many lives. im done ranting.

[murphy1d]

DWI is Driving While Intoxicated which equals drunk driving.



I agree, as I am a hefty man who can drink the 2 glasses of wine and still retain his driving skill.

I see that the theory here so far from the hardcore group is "drinking alcohol and driving will lead to killing people."

OK, so the one speeding ticket is also revocation-worthy as death is "inevitable" too (just check out the police statistics). So 55mph is ok, but 56 is another garaged Honda Civic.

Oh yeah, and I guess pot would be lumped in here too, so cabs galore at the concert tonight, and don't forget the contact high may impare the non-smoking driver (make them sit in the corner while you watch the show).

Point is, abuse is abuse and should be stopped. Repeat offense is the best indicator of the un-heeded lesson. But judge not....

PS. - Those who judge because of some tragedy that has befallen their family, don't point a finger at me. I lost my girlfriend wrapped around a tree. Her crime, not getting enough sleep. So how are you going to control that next?

[thearchangel]

Ok this is how I think it should be everywhere.

1st time- License pulled for 6 months and only get it back after at least 3 months of some sort of Classes and working a call with a EMT on a car wreck. True everyone is stupid once in their lives so I can forgive that

2nd time- License pulled for good and I would say some jail sentence like 6 month min.

3rd time or greater- In jail for at least 5 years each offense

It may sound a little over harsh to some but sounds like a slap on the wrist to me. Try living a life without your family member or friend because of some asshole who thought i would have one more drink? Like I said everyone can screw-up once but if it happens again they show they are not responsible for their actions and should have the card removed for LIFE! case closed

If any one had to ever work a call out were someone is killed in any type of crash it would make them understand how crazy driving sober is.

[ariastar]

Seems a bit extreme, don't you think?

Repeated DUI's, yeah, I'll give you that. That's irresponsible people that don't care enough about others to get help. But one DUI and never being allowed to drive again? How about giving the people help, instead of just taking away privileges?

Taking away the privilege of driving would be as effective as suspending licenses for speeders. They're still gonna do it anyway. Give people genuine help with dealing with their problems.

Once is all it takes to kill someone. You know before you drink to have a back-up. You don't do that, then you're risking the lives of everyone else and you're lucky you're not being slapped with worse charges. Want to keep driving? Get a designated driver instead of doing it drunk. Period.